Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation • Hacker News Board

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#301

Post by flukus » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:38 AM UTC

toomanybeersies wrote: post #127

nostromo wrote: post #23

Seattle used to have this for an area of the city. It was called the "Free Ride Zone" - and it had some unexpected consequences. The primary problem is that homeless people would get on the bus because it's warm, and would fall asleep. The busses became rolling homeless shelters. This caused other people to take the bus less, because of public safety concerns, as well as simple quality-of-life issues like unpleasant…

Interestingly, here in Melbourne we have a similar system when it comes to paying fares. It's not the bus/train/tram drivers responsibility to ensure you pay your fare, you can walk onto a bus without tagging on and the driver won't even blink, it's the job of roaming ticket inspectors to enforce fare payment. In my experience, we don't have a particularly significant problem with homeless people and other "undesirab…

In Melbourne it had some not so great effects. A lot of people will use it instead of just walking a couple of blocks and the free zone is already the slowest and most congested part of the network, so it made PT worse for everyone else. As a resident of zone 1 I now get to subsidize the free users in the city and zone 2 because they removed zone 1 only tickets.

I have a feeling the people complaining about the homeless would say the same things encountering "undesirables" on our PT though, it's just a disguised "I have to interact with poor people" argument.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#302

Post by awb » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 7:03 AM UTC

werber wrote: post #82

farss wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the free fare - it's the abysmal lack of shelter options and the attempts by cities to criminalize encampments and force people to find somewhere indoors to avoid arrest.

100% this, I’ve been homeless and slept on the bus or subway to stay warm (and safe) and not once did someone try to help me. And now I’m years out of being in that situation and I am part of the same problem, I almost never take public transportation and use Lyft or my car to get around.

> I’ve been homeless and slept on the bus or subway to stay warm (and safe) and not once did someone try to help me.

Curious how someone could have most helped you at that time in your life if you don't mind sharing.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#303

Post by ahelwer » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 7:16 AM UTC

epicureanideal wrote: post #197

nostromo wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a much harder problem to solve than you realize it is. The truth is a lot of the homeless people that aren't in shelters choose not to go to shelters. Why? The biggest reason is because shelters don't allow drugs or alcohol, and if you're an addict that's an immediate pass. There are other reasons too. Sometimes couples want shelter together, but most are separated by gender (and for good reason: to prevent…

As I was saying, what's stopping us from forcing the politicians to provide better options? Is there some way we can organize a discussion about practical solutions to this issue, and then pick that and tell the politicians to go do it? I'm not saying our current solutions are good by the way, which seems to be what some people replying are interpreting my comment as. I'm personally in favor of just state funded smal…

Yeah, housing first is absolutely the way to go. Sadly the very thing causing homelessness also makes housing-first much more difficult: astronomically-expensive real estate. Condos in Seattle cost more than $500/sqft, and investing tons of money to construct these buildings further props up the ridiculous valuations.

Socialized housing is absolutely the answer, but homelessness will never be solved until we stop treating housing as an investment. Housing increasing in value is also housing increasing in cost. Investment growth is diametrically opposed to affordability.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#304

Post by akulbe » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 7:20 AM UTC

How is this sustainable? It costs someone, right?

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#305

Post by ahelwer » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 7:26 AM UTC

Thriptic wrote: post #298

istjohn wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been substantially inconvenienced by people who are homeless. I live down the street from a soup kitchen, and I got scabies after someone apparently spent the night in my unlocked car. But obviously any inconvenience I experience pales in comparison to their suffering on the streets. It's natural to be frustrated and annoyed by homelessness at times, but surely it's easy to also feel compassion for these peopl…

It depends on the situation. I certainly feel compassion for people who are down on their luck; who want to be part of society and have just gotten unlucky; and who are scraping to get by and trying to fix things. I absolutely want to extend them help and see them get back into a healthy, happy, and productive state (and have done so in the past). That being said, I don't have much compassion for people who harass me…

Many of these people experience serious mental health issues, including addiction. I've had mental health struggles myself (depression) as have many people here. If you are among them, ask yourself how well you think your recovery would have gone without a safe, warm, dry place to retreat where nobody would bother you.

Then there's the issue of many mental disorders strongly affecting executive functioning, which is required to keep appointments with their healthcare provider. Even people in the most stable of circumstances miss appointments; now think how difficult that would be when you don't know where you'll be sleeping that night (plus aforementioned mental health issues).

All of these issues compound on one another. I have nothing but sympathy for people experiencing homelessness, and nothing will change that.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#306

Post by iudqnolq » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 7:48 AM UTC

winrid wrote: post #294

toomanybeersies wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit elitist, isn't it? We could also ban vagrants from being inside the city limits at night. Out of sight, out of mind. More seriously though, take an Uber (or UberPool) if you want clean, sober public transport.

Sorry that's just not an acceptable answer. Telling everyone to add to traffic in the city just to be in a clean environment is stupid. I spent two weeks in Beijing. They actually kicked the homeless out of the city and there are constant reminders to keep the subways clean. It was really nice.

This is not actually true. Beijing has a massive underclass of people living illegally because they don't have internal passports that allow them to live in a city. This let's the city have the benefit of their labor while being able to crack down harshly and jail/deport whenever. They also don't provide any social services for these people (trash pickup, school, medical). So that's why many people who you might otherwise have seen were staying out of sight in the rich areas.

If you want to read more, the Chinese system of inherited internal passports is called hukou.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#307

Post by adreamingsoul » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 8:03 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #23

Seattle used to have this for an area of the city. It was called the "Free Ride Zone" - and it had some unexpected consequences. The primary problem is that homeless people would get on the bus because it's warm, and would fall asleep. The busses became rolling homeless shelters. This caused other people to take the bus less, because of public safety concerns, as well as simple quality-of-life issues like unpleasant…

Portland, Oregon also had a Free Zone that was eventually canceled for similar reasons.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#308

Post by Broken_Hippo » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 8:03 AM UTC

aptwebapps wrote: post #281

markdown wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they should, shouldn't they. Nobody should be able to monopolize and ruin the commons, whether or not they have a home. The problem isn't the criminalizing of sleeping in public spaces, it's the lack of publicly funded shelters and publicly funded (incl. mental) healthcare for the homeless. We should pay to give them a place to sleep, and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public…

If you'll hold off on the criminalization until all the shelters are built, maybe, but the former is easier than the latter and not everyone is equally invested in the two endeavors.

And not just shelters. Proper shelters.

Shelters without forced religious services. Without forced NA/AA. Shelters that will allow families to stay together. Shelters that don't take away walkers and oxygen tanks due to being "weapons". Shelters that are safe, for everyone, especially if you are trans. Ones that allow folks to actually improve their life instead of waiting hours for food and mandatory classes. Bonus points if they provide for pets as well: I know of at least one woman that stayed with an abusive partner because of this. Her only friend in the country (!) was her dog. (He died while she was pregnant, so she got a better life, but no dog).

It is unfortunate that the shelters we do have are rarely good enough.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#309

Post by Broken_Hippo » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 8:04 AM UTC

jachee wrote: post #275

markdown wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they should, shouldn't they. Nobody should be able to monopolize and ruin the commons, whether or not they have a home. The problem isn't the criminalizing of sleeping in public spaces, it's the lack of publicly funded shelters and publicly funded (incl. mental) healthcare for the homeless. We should pay to give them a place to sleep, and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public…

> We should pay to give them a place to sleep, and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public spaces. Good luck with the former. The NIMBYs will fight it tooth and nail, every millimeter of the way.

Then elect better legislators to reign them in or will at least pass laws that will disallow that sort of thing.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#310

Post by Broken_Hippo » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 8:10 AM UTC

deeg wrote: post #233

jMyles wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it's not obvious, but then you ask: > So, what do you do? Allow people to shoot up in a shelter? And the answer is yes, obviously . Safe-injection sites and opiate maintenance programs work. And you also go several steps further by ending drug prohibition entirely. Prohibition has created an environment where the only opioid drugs available are highly concentrated and easy to smuggle, just as alcohol prohibit…

Unfortunately the answer is not obviously yes. A long time ago I volunteered in a shelter. High (and drink) guests can be more violent and argumentive; fights will break out over people stealing drugs. They pass out and make messes with bodily fluids that have to be cleaned up. They leave dirty needles laying around. Few people, including other guests, want to deal with these and the safety issues and so fewer come (…

If folks can steal other people's stuff, it is not a good shelter. It doesn't matter if it is drugs or any other personal belonging. If folks can steal drugs, they can steal money as well.

Build better shelters.

But more than that: You can require certain things, like not being violent with other folks. That they clean up their own messes. Provide mental and physical health care at the shelter and offer medical help in weaning off drugs. This won't work in an environment that isn't safe and secure, for both the person and their stuff.

More unpopularly: Require that they shoot up in the proper location, where there are sharps boxes and so on. Get treatment for folks or employ trained staff to help folks shoot up (if you can't help folks stop, we can do it as safely as possible).